Suchergebnisse

The Irish Johne's Control Programme (IJCP) provides a long-term approach to the voluntary control of Johne's disease (JD) in Ireland, strongly supported by Irish cattle industry leadership. It leverages the establishment of Animal Health Ireland for control of animal diseases not regulated by the European Union. The IJCP has four objectives: facilitate protection against spread of JD to uninfected farms; reduce the level of infection when present; assure markets of JD control in Ireland; and improve calf health and farm biosecurity. Key IJCP elements are an annual veterinary risk assessment and management plan (VRAMP), annual whole herd test (WHT) by ELISA on blood or milk samples with ancillary faecal PCR testing of ELISA reactors, and Targeted Advisory Service on Animal Health (TASAH) investigations of infected herds. There are pathways for assurance of herds with continuing negative tests and for management of test-positive herds. Herdowners are responsible for on-farm activities, and specifically-trained (approved) veterinary practitioners have a pivotal role as technical advisors and service providers. The programme is supported by training of veterinarians, performance of testing in designated laboratories, documentation of policies and procedures, innovative data management for herd and test activities and for programme administration, training, and broad communication and awareness activities. Tools and systems are refined to address emerging issues and enhance the value of the programme. An Implementation Group comprising industry, government and technical leaders sets strategic direction and policy, advised by a Technical Working Group. Shared funding responsibilities are agreed by key stakeholders until 2022 to support herds in the programme to complete requirements. Herd registrations have increased steadily to exceed 1,800. National bulk tank milk surveillance is also being deployed to identify and recruit test-positive herds with the expectation that they have a relatively high proportion of ...

Annually, within the framework of the Salmonella control programme the member states have to report to the European Commission (EC) the proportion of poultry flocks positive for Salmonella spp. and for the target serovars S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium (including the monophasic variant) – in laying hen -, broiler -, and turkey flocks – and additionally S. Hadar, S. Infantis and S. Virchow in parent flocks of Gallus gallus . The Poultry Health Data constitutes the basis for that report transmitted to the national authorities and in the context of the European Union Summary Report and the co-financing of the Salmonella control programme to the European Food Safety Authority and EC. In 2017, target serovars have been detected in 1.3 % of breeding flocks of Gallus gallus (S. Infantis in two flocks), in 0.6 % of laying flocks (S. Enteritidis in 15 flocks and S. Typhimurium in one flock), in 0.1 % of broiler flocks (S. Enteritidis in three flocks), and in 0% of turkey flocks. The EU-targets were achieved for laying hens, broilers, turkeys but not for breeding hens. Salmonella spp. was isolated from three breeding flocks (1.9 %), 33 laying - (1.1 %), 183 broiler - (3.7 %) and twelve turkey flocks (2.7 %). In turkeys, the reduction of Salmonella spp.-positive flocks from 10.1 % in 2013 to proportions between 3.6-2.5 % in the years 2014-2017 reflects the impressive success of the control program. In all other poultry populations the situation deteriorated in the last 2-3 years signaling that the continuation of the taken measures like the vaccination programs or the rigorous hygiene control programs must not soften. Compared to 2016, the number of Salmonella -positive flocks increased slightly in populations of breeding flocks (from two to three flocks). In laying hens the proportion of flocks positive for Salmonella decreased from 1.5 % to 1.1 %, although the target serovars positive flocks have increased slightly since 2014 from 0.35 % to 0.56 %. In the broiler population the proportion of Salmonella - and target ...

[First paragraph]We would like to reply to the article written by Axel Klein entitled, "Between the Death Penalty and Decriminalization: New Directions for Drug Control in the Commonwealth Caribbean" published in NWIG 75 (3&4) 2001. We have noted a number of factual inaccuracies as well as hostile comments which portray the United Nations International Drug Control Programme in a negative light. This reply is not intended to be a critique of the article, which we find unbalanced and polemical, but rather an alert to the tendentious statements about UNDCP, which we feel should be corrected.

OBJECTIVE—To review the impact of New Zealand's tobacco control programme from 1985 to 1998 on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption, and to estimate the scope for further reduction. DESIGN—Country case study; interventions, with outcomes ranked internationally across time. SETTING—New Zealand 1985-98; for 1985-95, 23 OECD countries. INTERVENTIONS—Between 1985 and 1998, New Zealand eliminated tobacco advertising, halved the affordability of cigarettes, and reduced smoke exposure in work time by 39%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE—Reduction in adult smoking prevalence and in tobacco products consumption per adult. RESULTS—Changes in prevalence 1985-98: in adults (aged 15+ years), −17% (from 30% to 25%) but short of the 20% target for 2000; in youth (aged 15-24 years), −20% (from 35% to 28%); and in Maori adults (aged 15+ years), −17% (from 56% in 1981 to 46% in 1996). Changes in consumption 1985-98: tobacco products per adult aged 15+ years, −45% (2493 to 1377 cigarette equivalents); cigarettes smoked per smoker, −34% (22.7 to 15.0 per day). Between 1985 and 1995 New Zealand reduced tobacco products consumption per adult more rapidly than any other OECD country, and reduced youth prevalence more rapidly than most. The acceleration of the decline in cigarette attributable mortality rates in men and in women age 35-69 years averted an additional 1400 deaths between 1985 and 1996. Between 1981 and 1996 smoking prevalence among blue collar workers decreased only marginally, and in 14-15 year olds, rose by one third between 1992 and 1997. CONCLUSION—In 13 years, New Zealand's tobacco control programme has been successful in almost halving tobacco products consumption, particularly by lowering consumption per smoker. With strong political support for quit campaigns, increased taxation, and the elimination of displays of tobacco products on sale, the consumption could theoretically be halved again in as little as 3-6 years. Keywords: New Zealand; tobacco control policy; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

Screening with Pap cytology has substantially reduced cervical cancer morbidity and mortality during the last 50 years in high-income countries. Unfortunately, in resource-poor countries, Pap screening has either not been effectively implemented or has failed to reduce cervical cancer rates. Cervical cancer in these countries thus remains a major public health problem. Infection with certain human papillomavirus (HPV) types is now recognized as a necessary cause of this disease and has led to new preventive strategies for cervical cancer. Testing for HPV DNA of oncogenic types is gaining increasing interest and application in cervical cancer screening. It has much greater sensitivity and only slightly lower specificity than Pap cytology. Molecular-based screening will be of particular clinical value in the post-vaccine era in which cervical disease will be a rare event and may escape cytology-based detection. As a primary screening test followed by Pap triage of HPV-positive cases, HPV testing has the potential to improve the overall quality of screening programmes, thus allowing for increased testing intervals, which would lower program costs with acceptable safety. Prophylactic vaccines against the 2 leading oncogenic HPV types (16 and 18) have been recently licensed. In large clinical trials, they have shown excellent safety and nearly 100% efficacy in preventing persistent infections and the cervical pre-cancers due to vaccine HPV types 16 and 18. Combining modern screening techniques and universal prophylactic HPV vaccination is likely to produce the most advanced and cost-effective preventive strategy to fight cervical cancer worldwide.

Niniejszy artykuł skupia się na wskazaniu zobowiązań Polski wynikających z art. 6 dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2016/2284 z dnia 14 grudnia 2016 r. w sprawie redukcji krajowych emisji niektórych rodzajów zanieczyszczeń atmosferycznych, zmiany dyrektywy 2003/35/WE oraz uchylenia dyrektywy 2001/81/WE[1]. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaprezentowanie rozwiązań prawnych przyjętych w krajowym programie ograniczania zanieczyszczeń powietrza (dalej: KPOZP) w Polsce, z wcześniejszym umiejscowieniem tego dokumentu na tle innych prawnych instrumentów ochrony powietrza, oraz ocena jego skuteczności. ; The article focuses on Poland's obligations arising from Article 6 of the Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC[1]. The objective of the article is to present legal solutions adopted in the National Air Pollution Control Programme (further referred to as the NAPCP) in Poland. This is preceded by an analysis of this document in the context of other legal instruments for environmental protection, and an evaluation of its effectiveness.

The article focuses on Poland's obligations arising from Article 6 of the Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC[1]. The objective of the article is to present legal solutions adopted in the National Air Pollution Control Programme (further referred to as the NAPCP) in Poland. This is preceded by an analysis of this document in the context of other legal instruments for environmental protection, and an evaluation of its effectiveness. ; Niniejszy artykuł skupia się na wskazaniu zobowiązań Polski wynikających z art. 6 dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2016/2284 z dnia 14 grudnia 2016 r. w sprawie redukcji krajowych emisji niektórych rodzajów zanieczyszczeń atmosferycznych, zmiany dyrektywy 2003/35/WE oraz uchylenia dyrektywy 2001/81/WE[1]. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaprezentowanie rozwiązań prawnych przyjętych w krajowym programie ograniczania zanieczyszczeń powietrza (dalej: KPOZP) w Polsce, z wcześniejszym umiejscowieniem tego dokumentu na tle innych prawnych instrumentów ochrony powietrza, oraz ocena jego skuteczności.

Niniejszy artykuł skupia się na wskazaniu zobowiązań Polski wynikających z art. 6 dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2016/2284 z dnia 14 grudnia 2016 r. w sprawie redukcji krajowych emisji niektórych rodzajów zanieczyszczeń atmosferycznych, zmiany dyrektywy 2003/35/WE oraz uchylenia dyrektywy 2001/81/WE[1]. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaprezentowanie rozwiązań prawnych przyjętych w krajowym programie ograniczania zanieczyszczeń powietrza (dalej: KPOZP) w Polsce, z wcześniejszym umiejscowieniem tego dokumentu na tle innych prawnych instrumentów ochrony powietrza, oraz ocena jego skuteczności. ; The article focuses on Poland's obligations arising from Article 6 of the Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC[1]. The objective of the article is to present legal solutions adopted in the National Air Pollution Control Programme (further referred to as the NAPCP) in Poland. This is preceded by an analysis of this document in the context of other legal instruments for environmental protection, and an evaluation of its effectiveness.